'Seeking' God

[fr0d0]

R'lyeh.

...is not the same as directly responding to people quoting you or you having the ability to respond to points in line. I'm not going to repeat that again. Feel free tt baselessly dismiss it all you like.

3. Perhaps he expected it. He seems always calm amid the thrashing about.

That is your opinion.

You don't think that he's a calm poster??

If, like so many naysayers here, we are to gauge calmness by content, rather than actual calm, I would say he is not so calm as you like to think.

You swear at him and call him names. He names that in his dogma.

Now, Frodo, I understand that as a Christian, you may feel a need to defend all Christians on these forums.

I defend anyone.

However, I find it a bit trying that every time a Christian breaks the rules, you question the rules, you question the staff and you question every user who was not in full agreement with said Christian.

I've questioned this preaching thing as I genuinely don't get it. That's covered in the thread about it. These things are apparent to theists: Ryft & Rayaan have both indicated their agreement.

We do not warn people/condemn people/ ban people for disagreeing with us.

In a manner of speaking you do. Like atheists who come to a church, and who's mild dissent is tolerated and expected, more extreme or honest views aren't. That how we all are.

1. Well I'm still confused by that rule and its application.

I think it is its application that is your issue. You know what preaching is, as you are a Christian. You seem to not like the rule being enforced so literally. In the past, we have received countless complaints for preaching that we decided were not preaching and ignored, after investigation and discussion. Other times, it is impossible to ignore. When a person starts a thread that is essentially a sermon involving a religious topic, it is preaching. Starting a discussion is one thing. Having a soliloquy is another.

No the application is not my issue. I've not seen it applied to any other theism, so how you can accuse me of bias is beyond me. You explaining why is helping us to understand why you think what you do.

I don't think you or anyone else would have replied differently, no.

Then please explain how we are "taking advantage." He replied to many of us before his expulsion (which is reversible, if he takes the time to get through the Gauntlet). We then replied to him. We do this even after members are banned. Remember, just about anyone can read these forums. The discussions are not solely for the individuals posting herein.

It's taking advantage because the person is unable to respond. It's kicking someone when they're already down. It's a debate where you make yourself an unreasonable advantage. That also makes you look bad. You can't argue the points so you must limit your opponent.